UMAPATI UPADHYAY Vs. CHANCELLOR SAMPURNANAND SANSKRIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the order dated 6.11.2000 passed by the Chancellor, and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-University to Issue an appointment order to the petitioner as lecturer in Puran-Itihas. The parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as the University) Issued an advertisement on 24.10.1998 for making appointment on several posts. The dispute here is with regard to appointment on two posts of lecturer in Puran-Itihas out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, in all 22 candidates applied for one post which was of unreserved category. A Selection Committee was constituted which met on 1.6.2000 to make selection on the unreserved post of lecturer and it prepared a panel containing three names in which Smt. Sashi Rani Misra was placed at serial No. 1, the petitioner Dr. Umapati Upadhyaya was placed at serial No. 2 and Dr. Nageshpati Tripathi was placed at serial No. 3. The executive council thereafter considered the matter and the candidate placed at serial No. 1 in the panel, namely, Smt. Sashi Rani Misra, was issued an appointment order. The executive council again met on 30.7.2000 and after recording that in view of the roster published on the same date, the other post of lecturer which had been advertised as a reserved post had become unreserved. Thereafter, it passed a resolution by majority for appointment of the petitioner Dr. Umapati Upadhyaya on the second post. It further resolved that necessary approval be obtained from the Chancellor for appointing the petitioner on the aforesaid second post. The matter was then considered by the Chancellor, who by his order dated 6.11.2000 set aside the decision of the executive council for making appointment of the petitioner. The executive council was directed to make selection after Issuing a fresh advertisement. This order of the Chancellor has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the power of making appointment is with the executive council of the university in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the matter could not have been referred to the Chancellor. He has further submitted that the only provision under which the executive council could refer the matter to the Chancellor is Sub-section (8) (a) of Section 31, but the provisions of the said sub-section will be attracted if the executive council did not agree with the recommendation made by the selection committee, which was not the case here and, consequently, the reference to the Chancellor was wholly illegal. It has thus been urged that the order passed by the Chancellor setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directing for fresh advertisement of the post is illegal. Learned counsel for Dr. Dev Krishna Dwivedi, who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, has submitted that the Selection Committee had met to make selection only on one post which had been advertised as being of unreserved category and the panel prepared was only for making appointment on the said post. The Selection Committee had not made any selection for the second post, which had been Initially advertised as that of reserved category and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on the aforesaid second post was wholly illegal. He has further submitted that the order passed by the Chancellor is eminently just and proper and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the same.